BACKGROUND: Surgical approach to type A acute aortic dissection (AADA) is usually dictated by the presenting anatomy. We compared long-term outcomes of AADA repaired with a root replacement versus a supracoronary tube graft, regardless of the proximal extent of the intimal tear. METHODS: A single-centre, retrospective cohort of consecutive patients undergoing repair of AADA between December 1999 and March 2012 were stratified based on the proximal surgical procedure performed: supracoronary tube graft or root replacement. Imaging, chart reviews and clinical follow-ups were analyzed to identify the presenting anatomy and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: We included the cases of 75 patients in our analysis: 54 received a supracoronary tube graft and 21 received a root replacement. The proximal tear was identified below the sinotubular junction in all patients in the root group and in 61% of patients in the supracoronary group. We detected no differences between the groups for in-hospital mortality, length of stay, or complications. However, the root group had significantly increased renal failure (0% v. 9.5%, p = 0.018), cardiopulmonary bypass time (198.4 ± 80.0 min v. 316.5 ± 102.5 min, p < 0.001), cross-clamp time (91.6 ± 34.9 min v. 191.3 ± 52.8 min, p < 0.001), duration of surgery (457.5 ± 129.9 min v. 611.6 ± 197.8 min, p < 0.001), and platelet transfusions (8.1 ± 7.6 v. 12.8 ± 8.7 units, p = 0.021) than the supracoronary group. Long-term follow-up demonstrated a greater incidence of 2+ aortic regurgitation among patients in the supracoronary group than the root group (29.7% v. 0.0%, p = 0.006); however, there was no difference between the groups in symptoms or reoperation. CONCLUSION: In AADA, aortic root replacement involves a longer procedure with increased risk of early renal impairment. Long-term follow-up identified significantly more aortic regurgitation and root dilation in the supracoronary group than the root group, with a trend toward worse long-term survival. However, we found no difference between the groups in mortality, reoperation or New York Heart Association class.
BACKGROUND: Surgical approach to type A acute aortic dissection (AADA) is usually dictated by the presenting anatomy. We compared long-term outcomes of AADA repaired with a root replacement versus a supracoronary tube graft, regardless of the proximal extent of the intimal tear. METHODS: A single-centre, retrospective cohort of consecutive patients undergoing repair of AADA between December 1999 and March 2012 were stratified based on the proximal surgical procedure performed: supracoronary tube graft or root replacement. Imaging, chart reviews and clinical follow-ups were analyzed to identify the presenting anatomy and clinical outcomes. RESULTS: We included the cases of 75 patients in our analysis: 54 received a supracoronary tube graft and 21 received a root replacement. The proximal tear was identified below the sinotubular junction in all patients in the root group and in 61% of patients in the supracoronary group. We detected no differences between the groups for in-hospital mortality, length of stay, or complications. However, the root group had significantly increased renal failure (0% v. 9.5%, p = 0.018), cardiopulmonary bypass time (198.4 ± 80.0 min v. 316.5 ± 102.5 min, p < 0.001), cross-clamp time (91.6 ± 34.9 min v. 191.3 ± 52.8 min, p < 0.001), duration of surgery (457.5 ± 129.9 min v. 611.6 ± 197.8 min, p < 0.001), and platelet transfusions (8.1 ± 7.6 v. 12.8 ± 8.7 units, p = 0.021) than the supracoronary group. Long-term follow-up demonstrated a greater incidence of 2+ aortic regurgitation among patients in the supracoronary group than the root group (29.7% v. 0.0%, p = 0.006); however, there was no difference between the groups in symptoms or reoperation. CONCLUSION: In AADA, aortic root replacement involves a longer procedure with increased risk of early renal impairment. Long-term follow-up identified significantly more aortic regurgitation and root dilation in the supracoronary group than the root group, with a trend toward worse long-term survival. However, we found no difference between the groups in mortality, reoperation or New York Heart Association class.
Authors: T Krüger; L O Conzelmann; R S Bonser; M A Borger; M Czerny; S Wildhirt; T Carrel; F W Mohr; C Schlensak; E Weigang Journal: Br J Surg Date: 2012-10 Impact factor: 6.939
Authors: P G Hagan; C A Nienaber; E M Isselbacher; D Bruckman; D J Karavite; P L Russman; A Evangelista; R Fattori; T Suzuki; J K Oh; A G Moore; J F Malouf; L A Pape; C Gaca; U Sechtem; S Lenferink; H J Deutsch; H Diedrichs; J Marcos y Robles; A Llovet; D Gilon; S K Das; W F Armstrong; G M Deeb; K A Eagle Journal: JAMA Date: 2000-02-16 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: James C Halstead; Matthias Meier; Christian Etz; David Spielvogel; Carol Bodian; Michael Wurm; Rohit Shahani; Randall B Griepp Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2006-12-04 Impact factor: 5.209
Authors: Sergey Leontyev; Constanze Trommer; Sreekumar Subramanian; Sven Lehmann; Yaroslava Dmitrieva; Martin Misfeld; Friedrich W Mohr; Michael A Borger Journal: Eur J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2012-02-09 Impact factor: 4.191
Authors: Sreekumar Subramanian; Sergey Leontyev; Michael A Borger; Constanze Trommer; Martin Misfeld; Friedrich W Mohr Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2012-06-28 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: J Stewart Collins; Arturo Evangelista; Christoph A Nienaber; Eduardo Bossone; Jianming Fang; Jeanna V Cooper; Dean E Smith; Patrick T O'Gara; Truls Myrmel; Dan Gilon; Eric M Isselbacher; Marc Penn; Linda A Pape; Kim A Eagle; Rajendra H Mehta Journal: Circulation Date: 2004-09-14 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Bo Yang; Elizabeth L Norton; Reilly Hobbs; Linda Farhat; Xiaoting Wu; Whitney E Hornsby; Karen M Kim; Himanshu J Patel; G Michael Deeb Journal: J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 2018-12-21 Impact factor: 5.209